THE COMMUTE: The hipsters are at it again. Ben Kabak of Second Avenue Sagas wonders publicly if everyone in the city should always have to pay for on-street parking. New York City now views free parking as a problem and is seeking to privatize it. And some sound giddy about the idea.

Basically the argument goes like this:

  1. The city should not be giving away public space for free.
  2. No one in NYC should own a car because cars are evil. They cause congestion and pollution.
  3. Mass transit can take you anywhere you want to go conveniently. If it doesn’t go there you can get on your bicycle or walk there. In a rare case you may need a taxi.
  4. If you dare buy a car, which are only owned by the wealthy, you should pay heavily to use it. Forget for a minute, that automobile owners already have to buy or lease their vehicle, pay high prices for gas, as well as pay gas taxes, registration and inspection fees, high tolls primarily used to subsidize mass transit, a city auto use tax, high insurance, maintenance, parking meters costing up to $3 an hour and increasing every six months, high garage fees and parking fines (sometimes for parking legally), in addition to other city taxes used to maintain roads – none of that is enough. Car owners do not pay their fare share and should pay more. They should not be able to park for free anywhere. Residential permits should be required any place there is no metered space or parking garage. Of course, the city could charge anything it wanted for such a permit, perhaps $15 a year or perhaps $100 and raise it anytime it saw the need.
  5. Drivers should pay a congestion pricing fee and the number of parking lanes should be reduced further (which would also increase congestion and pollution) to make driving even more difficult.

This myopic view of the city fails to recognize that it is not only rich people who own cars. It is the working middle class who cannot get to work conveniently and quickly by mass transit. They do not understand that a 10-minute auto trip from Sheepshead Bay to Bay Ridge or Canarsie can take 60 to 90 minutes by mass transit and they make no proposals to change that.

Further, it is the middle class who would be most affected by a proposal requiring residential parking permits throughout the city, because those are the people who cannot afford to pay for a garage or buy a house with a garage. They are the ones who rely on free city parking to store their vehicle, not the rich. Residential parking permits merely represents another city tax to our already overtaxed middle class.

No one talks about how these permits would work. Where would non-residents or visitors park? Wouldn’t they be circling the block even more to look for a scarce parking meter or would they be required to purchase a daily permit for perhaps $10 to park in a non-metered space?  If permits are required only in certain neighborhoods, how would you visit your doctor when you never know how long you will be stuck in the waiting room and therefore cannot use a meter? Would you have to buy permits for each neighborhood you visit? What if you wanted to see a movie when the meter limits you to only one hour and there is no parking lot? How would you visit friends and relatives if you have your own garage and do not require a permit to park your car at home? Would you still be required to purchase one anyway when you need to park your car away from home?

The answer to these questions, most likely, is if you don’t like it, get rid of your car because we don’t have one so you don’t need one either. Maybe this is true if you live in a hipster neighborhood where you have quick access to a subway and it doesn’t take one hour just to reach the Long Island Railroad, but it is not true for the rest of us.

Of course, parking permits would not apply to those who use or misuse and abuse handicapped parking permits, the police and fire departments, elected officials and their staffs, certain government employees including judges, and anyone who is politically connected and can obtain a police placard.  (These state anyone using one is on “official police business.”)  Hats off to State Senator Tony Avella who recently destroyed his parking permit because he does not believe he should be entitled to one.

Has anyone calculated the loss in revenue by those using placards who are exempt from paying parking meters, revenue that has to be made up by higher rates paid by the rest of us? I once saw a meter maid bypass a car with an expired meter because a placard merely stated that the car was being used by someone who volunteered in the police administered “Youth Dares” program. Meanwhile a friend of mine was recently ticketed for an expired meter when there was actually two minutes remaining. How fair is that?

Every few years whenever placard abuse is publicized, a pledge is made by the mayor to reduce the number of parking placards in circulation, but between these promises and subsequent reductions, when no one is watching, the number grows.

Another fallacy made by the hipsters is that revenue from residential parking permits or congestion pricing would somehow fund mass transit improvements and they would be immediately noticeable allowing people to give up their cars. Forget that it takes 20 years for one subway to be constructed, or that most of the revenue would probably just go into the general fund to plug the deficit.

Any proposal to make life a little easier for the automobile driver, such as a proposal to allow you to park at a broken fire hydrant that serves no purpose other than to collect revenue, attracts the ire of the anti-automobile crowd.

We do not need further encouragement for a mass exodus of the middle class leaving us only a city of the very rich and very poor. I also fail to understand how sharing parking revenues with an outside corporation will help the city financially, other than rewarding friends of the mayor. Why couldn’t the city install new technology itself or ensure that parking meters are more reliable?

What do you think? Are the hipsters correct? Will an end to free parking go toward funding and improving mass transit, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road and reducing congestion and pollution to make this city more livable? Is it wrong to make driving or parking easier?

The Commute is a weekly feature highlighting news and information about the city’s mass transit system and transportation infrastructure. It is written by Allan Rosen, a Manhattan Beach resident and former Director of MTA/NYC Transit Bus Planning (1981).

Related posts

  • Anonymous

    Hipsters? Really? You should check out what that means before bandying it about.

  • Faba

    I blame Bloomy for all this driver hatred. Many people driver because they have to. You can’t be carpenter and not drive a van all over the city. Let’s face it people who drive in the city during the week are blue-collar folk. Taxing these people more is like stepping on already aborted fetus, it’s cruel and unnecessary.

    • levp

      Nice comparison at the end; have you tried that?

  • nrfpei

    The argument is actually much simpler: Why should streets be lined with 120sqft storage spaces that are given away for free?

    • Anonymous

      No. That is not the argument. The argument is why single out auto drivers for higher fees? Why not also charge users of public libraries, public beaches and public playgrounds, etc? Those are also “given away for free” right?

      • Faba

        The Bus is right you know. It costs $13 to cross to SI. Do you know how expensive that is for a roofer who makes $35-40K a year? Btw I’m not talking about about one time fee kind of deal I’m talking about paying for a bridge 5-6 days a week. Now you want to tax this guy more? This is nuts!

      • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

        Because anyone can use a beach or a library. Only car owners can use free places to store their property.

        • Anonymous

          But why pick on car owners over other groups? You still didn’t answer that question.

          Okay, I now propose that all parents should have to pay a fee to enroll their students in a public school. Anyone can’t just attend a public school, you have to be a child between the ages of 5 and 18. So what do you think of that? Am I unfairly picking on one particular group or not?

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            because reproducing is a part of nature . Perpetuating the species and stuff like that. WE NEED CHILDREN. Even if you don’t have a kid, if nobody had any more kids there would be no more us, US. or U.S.

            The public does not benefit from the other guys car.

          • Anonymous

            First of all, car owners are already paying an auto use tax for using their car in the City in addition to other auto-related charges and taxes. Additional “taxes” for residential parking is just double charging.

            And the public does benefit from the other guy’s car because he is not further overcrowding the mass transit system. Also, what if hitchhiking weren’t illegal and everyone picked up strangers, would you not have a problem with residential free parking then or would you just come up with another reason to support it because you just have your mind made up that it should be done and nothing could change that?

            I also would like to hear exactly how it would work if implemented and how it would be fair to people who currently do not store their vehicle overnight on city streets. Would they be charged the same amounts as people without driveways and garages or is it that you just don’t care what would be fair or not.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            First I own a car. The reg fee is nothing compared to the costs of roads etc…

            But I think it is really the other way around, every time I get on the subway I am making it easier for the guy who chooses to drive.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, anyone can’t use a City playground so let’s charge for them. City law states that if you are not accompanied by a child, you have no right to set foot in a playground.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            If you really want you can go into a playground. Just keep your hands to yourself and out of your pockets.

          • Anonymous

            Not legally. Second sentence. What are you saying? Spell it out.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            I am saying that if you want to sit in a playground and not do anything perverted, nobody is gonna call the cops.

          • http://www.nedberke.com Ned Berke
          • Anonymous

            Ned, I forgot about that article. Just another way to charge people in the name of maintaining public safety.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            The City does not make a cent on a $50 summons.

          • Anonymous

            That’s why the minimum fine for individuals should be $100 or $200 for the most minor offenses while billion dollar corporations are only fined $3,000 which is pennies for them. Right?

            Why should Alex Rodriguez and others like him pay only $,1200 a year in real estate taxes for a $6 million co-op? If you want summonses to be higher, don’t pick on the little guy and let the rich get away with murder.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            I am just saying that they are not giving out $50 summons to make money

          • Anonymous

            So then what are they giving them out for? What harm were a few men playing chess on chess tables provided by the City doing? They weren’t drinking or making any type of disturbance or harassing anyone. All they were doing was minding their own business enjoying a City park which is what it was meant for. Do they have to be under 16 to be allowed to play chess there?

            The only purpose of the summonses could have been for revenue. One of the mothers even stated that one of the men taught her son chess in that park. Not everyone without a child in a City park is a pervert. What about the old people who just want to go there and be reminded of happier times seeing children playing and having a good time. Maybe it makes them feel young again. And they are also paying for the upkeep of the playground through their taxes. Why should they be deprived of that?

            Any way you look at it this law, like many others created under a climate of fear makes no sense. You don’t have to punish everyone to punish perverts. It’s like when the teacher decides to punish the whole class because the child who was chewing gum won’t admit he was the one doing it. Of course, that probably doesn’t even happen anymore because our society now allows everything.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            there is no profit to the city in a $50 summons. Do the math.

            It is about control and power.

            It makes sense to somebody, somebody who has more facts than you or I.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t see how control and power enters into it. As far as I know the cops had no beef with any of those men. They weren’t caught gambling or doing anything else illegal except for being there. Perhaps some powerful person in the neighborhood did not like them for whatever reason and called in a favor with the Police. That’s the only rationale I could think of. Anyway you cut it, it wasn’t right.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Maybe someone complained. Maybe they were doing something inappropriate. Maybe there are facts that you or I do not know. But it is not about money, the city looses money if it has to collect a $50 fine. Not everything is about money.

          • Anonymous

            If they were doing something inappropriate, that doesn’t matter. It would have had to be illegal. It is not right to put dumb laws on the books just so you can harass anyone because you don’t like the way he looks. Maybe that works in places like Iran, but not in a supposed democracy.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            Why do you think that? Can you cite some evidence? They don’t make $50 on ONE ticket, they make money off the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of $50 tickets given out every day. It’s about volume. Judges and Cops report to work every day and the more tickets that are written the more their pay is being covered.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Think of the time it take to write and process a ticket from the police dept. The the Dept of Finance has to collect the money; if they collect.

            But wait, what if you plead innocent. Judges, court rooms, guards… all for $50.

            and ya might be found not guilty.

            It all add up to negative income.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            Wrong.
            Nearly all of it is automated now. A cop is going to be paid the same salary
            no matter WHAT he is doing out there. If he’s writing tickets then that’s
            more money for the city then if he’s fighting real crime. Traffic Cops get
            PAID to write tickets all day. It takes A Cop or Traffic Cop 2 minutes to
            write a ticket, 5 if they are going to check your license/plate for any
            outstanding warrants. The Dep’t of Finance doesn’t have to lift a finger to
            get its money. A whole slew of pre-generated letters are printed out on a
            pre-determined schedule, put into envelopes and auto-stamped to be mailed.

            When you come to court to fight a ticket all the people there are already
            getting paid to be there. Your 50$ ticket doesn’t make them work any more or
            less then normal. They are gonna get paid no matter what. If the city didn’t
            make a profit on writing tickets then they would not be writing them and
            there would not be quota’s, but there are. It’s all about revenue
            generation. All of it. It’s 100% Revenue Generation, 50% Social Engineering
            and 50% Punishment. Yes, 200% of pain for you, and benefit for them. Each
            50$ ticket has a mandatory 40$ surcharge if you’re found guilty. All of a
            sudden that 50 is 90. Get 6 points in a year? OH OH, 450 ADDITIONAL Driver
            Assessment Penalty. It’s automatic. And cops and traffic agents are
            ENCOURAGED to push people over that 6 point line for things they didn’t do.
            Have you tried to fight these tickets? Sometimes even with PHOTO evidence
            the judge will ignore your argument and find you guilty and there is nothing
            you can do. How many people are gonna pay for a lawyer in traffic court? The
            ones that do spare themselves the points but not the fees. It’s all one big
            revenue generation scam.

            I’ve tried not to be insulting man, but seriously…..WAKE THE FUCK UP.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            I don’t think you can insult me. and we are not talking about traffic court. This is about adults in the playground court. Not so automated.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            Every ticket that’s written is automated. They scan it and put the serial
            number into the system. It’s not done every day, but they are assigned a few
            hours each week where they enter all the tickets they’ve given out into the
            system. It’s part of the job they already get paid to do. It doesn’t cost
            the city more then a few cents to write and process these tickets. I’m
            willing to bet you wont find a citation anywhere otherwise. If you so
            strongly believe the city loses money on every ticket it writes then provide
            evidence and citations, not just your personal opinion. I’m speaking from
            first and second hand experiences, I’ve witnessed the process and I’ve
            discussed it with those that are part of it. What about you? You’re entitled
            to your opinions, but opinions aren’t facts and you’re behaving as if your
            opinion is indeed fact. Well, back it up man, back it up.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            I will ask my cop friend when I see him next time. In the mean time go take a piss in the middle of Sheepshead Bay Road and see how fast you can help a cop meet his quota.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            By all means. I hope he’s retired or planning to quit soon, otherwise you’re
            not likely to get an honest answer out of him. If you’re going to cite a
            statistic try looking for something official and in print. You’re the one
            dissenting opinion here, so its on you to find a legitimate citation that
            supports your opinion. Otherwise It’s just that, an opinion. You know what
            everyone says about those right?

            As an aside, please don’t take this as any indication that it’s not ok to
            have a differing opinion around here. We’re all entitled to our opinions and
            thoughts and points of view and we’re all entitled to share them here,
            encouraged in fact. It’s when we try passing those along as fact that you
            run into trouble.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            He is gonna retire the end of the year. Over 20 years on the job as a Housing Cop and on a bike in Prospect Park.

            Believe me or not this is what he said

            On a $50 ticket the City might break even if the person just mails in the money. 2 cops would have to spend 10 minutes giving out the ticket and another few minutes in the station house getting the info into the computer.

            If it is a crime (not like a parking ticket) like trespassing (being in a closed park) or disobeying a park sign (like being in a playground without a kid) and the person pleads not guilty the city loosed big time right away. Because the DA has to get involved. and judges…

            He said the only reason he can think of that cops would give out stop people for these quality of live things is to see if they have outstanding warrants…. Keeping bad guys off the streets.

          • Anonymous

            Are you serious? They actually charge you a surcharge in addition to the fine if you are found guilty? When did that happen? How is that fucking legal? That’s like saying if you commit a real crime like possessing an illegal firearm which has a supposed mandatory 1 year in jail and you decide to plead not guilty because you thought you had a permit but couldn’t locate it, the penalty is now 18 months because you pleaded not guilty.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            It’s an “administrative surcharge”. If you plead guilty sometimes the Judge
            can decrease it I think. But its never happened to me.

          • Anonymous

            Nearly a doubling of the fine hardly sounds like a “administrative surcharge.” It’s more of a threat not to go through with a hearing.

            Maybe this is what you are thinking of. The ticket is $60. They encourage you to plead guilty and pay $30 for it to be dismissed only if you forgo a hearing They threaten you that if the judge does find you guilty, you will have then have to pay the entire amount and there will be no way the judge can reduce it. I thinks that sucks also, because I remember when judges used to routinely cut fines in half or even reduced it to zero when he believed the person and thought the person had a good reason why he got the ticket. It wouldn’t be so bad if you knew you could get off if you were truly innocent. But there is no guarantee of that. With some judges you are guilty no matter what evidence you can provide. Hell, I once got a parking ticket when I was standing a few feet away exchanging information with a driver I had just been in an accident with, although the car was in the middle of the street with its hazard lights flashing.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry – no. I know of people who have been ticketed for just walking through a play ground. One person was 17, the other 68.

          • Anonymous

            What were they doing there? Committing the heinous crime of wanting to use the bathroom?

          • Anonymous

            cutting through rather than walking around the park. Evil folks I tell you

          • Anonymous

            So now that you know that legally the playgrounds are not open to everyone, are you now in favor for charging for them because the City is giving away public space for free. Or is it that parking is the only public space that you object to it being given away for “free” as you put it. I guess you can ignore the City Auto Use tax which includes the right for cars to use the streets. And free parking comes under the definition of usage.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            First, there must be more to the story about the guy getting a summons in the playground, but you know everything

            I don’t really think playgrounds should be for everyone. But what does this have do free parking.

            So I am just saying that having a free place to store you car is a good deal for the price you pay in your “City Auto Use Tax”. You should be lucky it is included.

          • http://www.flickr.com/knightmare6 Knightmare6

            It’s called “meeting their (illegal) quota”

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            That is what every guilty person says when they get a summons

          • Anonymous

            Your comment here is totally nonsensical.

          • Guest

            Hey Chicken… hate to burst your bubble but that is one of the stupidest quotes I’ve ever read. Let me help you out and correct what actually happens. Not everyone that receives a summons is guilty. Cops give tickets for anything especially when they have quotas to fill. Here read up: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-09/local/27080654_1_quotas-brooklyn-stationhouse-nypd If you truly believe after reading this btw it stops at traffic summons, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya. I know people, working class individuals who a few years ago were given tickets for playing dominoes by the 61st in Bill Brown Park. Tickets for drinking beer on a stoop? Tickets for sitting on a crate? For playing chess? Wake up pal, ALL QUOTAS. Stop denying it. Yep, all these people are guilty alright. SMH

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Your friends must be hipsters. Lookin’ for trouble.

          • http://www.flickr.com/knightmare6 Knightmare6

            It’s also what innocent people say when they are busted for something they didn’t do.

            Not every ticket is justly-issued.

          • Anonymous

            And even if they are guilty, look at the offenses. It’s as if the cops can’t find anything to do to be more productive. If their purpose is to raise money for the City coffers, make the NYPD a branch of the Department of Finance.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Are you still thinking that when a cop gives someone a $50 ticket it has a positive effect on the Department of Finance.

          • Anonymous

            Are you thoroughly nuts? You can’t be saying that the cop gets to keep the money. So you must be saying that $50 fines are given out for the social good. Really?

            And cops don’t have quotas so the City can get more revenue? Summonses are given for not wearing seatbelts because the government is so concerned about you getting hurt; ASP summonses are there to teach people not to violate them so the streets can be kept clean because that is such a high priority; those men playing chess in the park on chess tables provided by the City were committing a real crime; and Bloomberg was so upset when the City Council proposed to give people a 5 minute grace period at parking meters had nothing to do with lost revenue. Wake up kid. It’s all about the money and nothing else. It make take you years to learn that, but you will eventually.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Not nuts. Again do the math. On a $50 ticket the city does not make a profit.

            People are alive because of the SEAT BELT LAW.
            My street is clean because of ASS Parking.

            A 5 minute grace period is ridiculous. What, is the ticket agent supposed to stand there for 5 minutes before putting a ticket on the window.

            Not I am not nuts. I am just not paranoid.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            The Seat Belt law exists because insurance companies lobbied for them so when people got into car accidents they wouldn’t get injured and the companies would have to pay out less money. The “for your own safety” argument is a bullshit argument to give it the appearance of legitimacy.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            So the insurance lobby saved my life. They made more money and I am alive. Fine.

          • Anonymous

            Safety is a frequent argument government uses as a rationale to enact legislation when the real reason is something else.

          • Anonymous

            This has nothing to do with paranoia. Everything you say just screams “youth” and “inexperience” and “naivity,” not that there is anything wrong with any of that. You are probably a happier person not being aware of what really is going on. Don’t want to burst your bubble, but waiting 5 minutes before writing a ticket is not crazy at all. It is just crazy when your only objective is to write as many tickets as you can not even caring if they are just or not. When you write them even before the meter expires because you hope that by the time the person comes for his car the flag would have gone up.

            Let me take you back to a time when revenue wasn’t the primary focus. When policeman were actually there to help you and provide information and directions, the time of the foot patrolman. I remember when before a cop wrote a ticket for double parking, he walked into three or four storefronts and asked if anyone was double-parked, and if he found someone, he just asked him to move the car and didn’t even write a summons. Sometimes he did spend 5 minutes looking for someone, and only wrote the ticket when he couldn’t find who the car belonged to. Sounds crazy doesn’t it?

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            and you are complaining that YOUR tax money is being waisted.

            I think I am more in touch with reality than you.

          • Anonymous

            How is being compassionate a waste of tax money?

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Compassionate?? Move your car. If your meter is expired let the next guy park.

          • Anonymous

            Trying your best not to give a double parking ticket by trying to locate the owner isn’t being compassionate? And how does writing the ticket at the meter 5 minutes sooner make the space available for others?

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            and you are complaining that YOUR tax money is being waisted.

            I think I am more in touch with reality than you.

          • Anonymous

            Here is another thing. You probably believe that the red light cameras to prevent running red lights are also there for our safety and not for the revenue they provide. So answer this question. If so, why have municipalities around the country that were losing money on them decide to remove them because of not enough violators? Were they not acting as a deterrent and providing for safer streets? But keeping them cost money and that was more important than “saving lives” which they were supposedly doing. Think about that.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Because people were tired of getting tickets and the complained to their elects to have them removed.

          • Anonymous

            Now I know that you are just guessing. I read several articles about 3 or 4 municipalities where this happened and there was no mention about anyone complaining to elected officials. In fact the mayor of one of the towns even admitted to the reporter that he had them removed because they weren’t generating revenue and the town could not afford to keep them.

          • Anonymous

            There was also this city in Maryland with red light cameras. For some reason one of the cameras was generating 7 times the revenue of all the other cameras for three years. Wow, those people were real dangerous drivers. Well one of the people who got a ticket there got suspicious. It turned out that all the lights on that street had 7 second yellow signals but the one with the camera only had a 4 second yellow. How could that ever happen? I wonder. The city was just elated that the “unintentional” error had been discovered and could be corrected that they immediately refunded all revenue collected that they didn’t deserve. Not.

            But you probably think that happened. Actually, they were quite pissed and refused to refund anything or lower the fines for a period of time like when private enterprise is forced to do when illegal overcharging is discovered. What the city engaged in was simply fraud and no one was punished for it. All they did was lower the yellows to 4 seconds at all the intersections.

          • Anonymous

            No, you are the one who sounds like he knows everything. We’ve debated this car parking to death so I won’t respond anymore on that. But if the read the article carefully about the playground instead of just skimming it, you would have seen that it wasn’t one guy who got summons but an entire group of men playing chess. Were they all doing something inappropriate as you say? Or it would have been too suspicious if the officer just ticketed one of them if he was being inappropriate and there was no law to charge him with?

            You also would have seen the post by BrooklynQ who posted other occurrences of a 17 year old and a 68 year old? Why shouldn’t they have been able to walk through the park as a shortcut other than for this stupid law? When you pass laws like this you just give the police too much power and endanger democracy. That is the larger issue here.

            In light of the discussion we were having “Playgrounds” has everything to do with “Parking” but you can’t seem to see that because you are so sure you are correct on this issue, you can’t even open yourself up to a well reasoned argument. Maybe you should just review the posts and think again.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Thank you. After rereading your posts and the Daily News articles I realized that I am incorrect and not entitled to my opinions. I am gonna go buy another car now.

          • Anonymous

            I’m glad you’ve finally seen the light. Do me a favor and go buy three. The environment can use all the help it can get.

            Of course you are entitled to your opinions if you can back them up which you clearly cannot.

          • Anonymous

            I’m glad you’ve finally seen the light. Do me a favor and go buy three. The environment can use all the help it can get.

            Of course you are entitled to your opinions if you can back them up which you clearly cannot.

  • Gilesda

    I couldn’t make it through the whole thing because of the tone and straw man arguments. But i saw enough to know that you are not engaging in a meaningful policy discussion–and from a former planner. Good grief.

    • Anonymous

      Of course you couldn’t read through the whole thing, because you are one of those people who have their mind made up beforehand and nothing you read will change that because you “know” that you are right.

      How about answering some of the questions the article poses like what would be the logistics of actually implementing a residential parking permit policy?

      And what about the City Auto Use Tax? Doesn’t that already include the right to drive your car and park it in residential areas if you can get a space? Wouldn’t you just be double charging people?

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

      Policy discussions have to take on real impact as compared to mere tabulation of goals. The presentation was quite meaningful.

      As someone who has worked in planning Allan Rosen is an especially good position to see how tunnel visioned city planners often are.

  • Local Broker

    Does anyone here wonder why they live in this city? It seems like every other day you hear about some bullshit proposal from some asshole that has no fucking clue about whats going on in this city but thinks he can make your life better. And there is dog shit everywhere.

    • levp

      Those making this proposal, unfortunately, know exactly what they are doing – and they don’t care about making your life better.
      It is all about privatizing any and all public property. The RFP itself seems to have been taken down, but those who read it quote it as follows:

      “In particular, NYCEDC is interested in Proposals that address the following asset classes:
      1. City parking assets (including on-street meters and off-street lots and garages).
      2. City real estate assets (including management, revenue generation and use proposals for new construction and existing City assets).
      3. Other City assets that require large capital or operational expenditures, including environmental, transportation and other infrastructure assets.”

      So the equivalents of Morgan Stanley (from Chicago parking “deal”) get all the profit, and you get all the pain. And they themselves live in NJ or in LI, so they don’t give a flying buck if decide to move to a “village town far away”.

      • Local Broker

        Yeah and look at how the Chicago deal worked out for the city. I think its to late for this city there is no turning back or around. There is just way to much corruption and to many politicians to get anything done right.

        “Every generation needs a new revolution.”

        “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

        Thomas Jefferson

  • Barkingspider7

    How much more is the city going to tax and take things away from us? Jeez – it’s time to move.

  • Barkingspider7

    How much more is the city going to tax and take things away from us? Jeez – it’s time to move.

  • Anonymous

    I want to move to the village town far away.

  • http://twitter.com/stefamafone Mos Stef

    The article this links to says “an RFP released last week by the city’s Economic Development Corporation asks investment banks to submit their best ideas for privatizing city assets.” So, when did investment banks start being run by “hipsters”? Come on.

    Last I checked, it was wealthy Upper East/West siders and Midtown businessmen like Bloomberg and his kind responsible for outer-borough-screwing-policies like these. The only way that these guys could ever possibly be referred to as “hipsters” would be in reference to their pelvic prostheses.

    Learn what the word actually refers to before slinging it around in poorly-written strawman arguments. Sheepshead Bites can do way better than this.

    • Anonymous

      I agree that Bloomberg and his pals cannot be considered hipsters. But look at all the people who think this is a great idea and who got the ear of DOT so all they want to do is make it more difficult to drive and create bike lanes everywhere whether they are needed or not? It’s the people living in neighborhoods like Williamsburg, Park Slope, Chelsea, etc, mostly people who don’t own cars with access to great mass transit and who drive only if they rent a car to go out of town. They will not be affected by a charge for on-street parking.

      One thing I despise are people who don’t care how much someone else is inconvenienced just as long as it doesn’t apply to them. They are nothing short of selfish.

      • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

        How do bike lanes make if more difficult to drive? Last week I drove from Prospect Park to Ave Z on Bedford Ave. The bike lane did not bother me.

        • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

          The Bike lanes on Bedford Ave are not obtrusive because Bedford Ave was not wide enough for two additional lanes of traffic. Installing those lanes didn’t really take anything away.

          The lanes on Prospect Park West however are intrusive, they stole a lane of traffic and pushed parked cars into the middle of the street. Previously when cars double parked or trucks made deliveries it wasn’t a problem because you still had two open lanes and traffic usually flowed around them unimpeded. Now traffic bottlenecks into a single lane. Previously a car could glide down from Grand Army Plaza to 15th st with almost no slowdown or traffic, now a single parked truck can cause a backup nearly instantly which has a secondary effect of slowing traffic on Flatbush Ave.

          In a few rare places bike lanes are acceptable and can be implemented without ruffling feathers, but not everywhere. There was no NEED. Prospect Park is nearly always closed to vehicular traffic and there is a double bike/jog lane inside that goes around the entire park with multiple exits and entrances. In fact they converted previous vehicle exits into bike only access points. It’s horrible!

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Now you are talking about my world. Car can still glide down PPW from GAP to Bartel Prichard, just not at 50 miles an hour any more. 3 lanes was TOO MUCH. Cars were speeding.

            We should not be building roads to accommodate double parking.

            Horrible not. I drive on it every day. It is fine.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            Yes, they should. It’s not 1950 anymore. Everyone should have the skill to
            drive along at 50mph without any issue.

          • Anonymous

            Cars were speeding on PPW because the lights were cycled at 35 to 40 mph to encourage speeding. If they turned green at 25 mph, there would have been no speeding and no need to reduce road capacity. What Arthur said about Bedford Avenue and Prospect Park West is 100% correct.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            Wrong. The light were timed for 25 (or so) and because the road had excessive capacity driver would speed and swerve just to get to the next red light.

          • Anonymous

            Really. Then why do I remember having to go 40 to get all green lights otherwise I would fall behind and couldn’t make it to BPS on one light?

            And what do you call excess capacity? Anything less than bumper to bumper traffic?

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            The timing of the lights has been fixed so that you can get from one end to the other at 25 miles an hour with no bumber to bumber traffic.

          • Anonymous

            I’d have to see it for myself. If that’s the case why are people complaining about having to squeeze into one lane when someone is making a delivery. And if you are correct, how could it stay that way if traffic is banned from the Park full time?

            You don’t think perhaps that some traffic would be diverted to Flatbush Avenue causing congestion there which would involve also delaying buses.

  • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

    We should NOT do away with free parking. Hell no. Owners of cars already pay far more then their fair share for the use of public commons. What we need to do is discourage (not prevent) people that live in apartments without parking spaces from buying more then one car.

    One major cause of the congestion and lack of parking is that some people that live in apartments and don’t have private parking own as many as 3 cars for the use of people that live there. Something that was once the province only of people with driveways. Combine that with people that DO have driveways owning multiple cars and overflowing into public spaces and that creates parking shortages, and traffic congestion.

    Perhaps some sort of “penalty” or additional fee for families that live in apartments and have more then one car. That may be reasonable.

    But just taking away all free parking? That’s insanity, bullshit, retarded.

    • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

      “Owners of cars already pay far more then their fair share for the use of public commons”

      What? Do you actually believe that?

      • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

        Are you kidding me? They are taxed on EVERY level. Registration, Ticket
        Quotas (Unfair Tickets, Ticket Traps, Administrative Fee’s), Punitive Tolls,
        Punitive Insurance Rates, Unfair Gas Prices/Gas Taxes and so much more.
        YES. People that own cars ARE charged too much. They pay for bridges, mass
        transit, sidewalk repair and maintenance, nearly everything. What do bike
        riders pay? What do pedestrians pay? Nothing above their normal taxes.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah you tell him Arthur.

        • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

          I would do the math, but I don’t think you would car. The real and imagined fees you list don’t come close to covering the cost of building and maintaining the streets and highways. It comes out of taxes we all pay.

          • Anonymous

            But everyone benefits from the roads, drivers and non-drivers alike. That’s why we all pay for them through taxes. It makes no sense to state that auto drivers should foot the entire bill for building and maintaining roads like you propose.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            But the person who has 3 cars gets a lot more out of the roads then the (52% of) Brooklynites who have no car.

          • Anonymous

            Not necessarily. my friend owns four working cars. The thing is he hasn’t figured out how to drive more than one of them at the same time, so he doesn’t use the roads any more than someone with one car.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            If he stores is personal property on public public property he is using the roads more than someone who does not have a car.

          • Anonymous

            But if there is plenty of room on the street where he stores them, why should you or anyone else care? It’s not that leaving a car parked causes wear and tear on the street. Please don’t respond that it keeps the street from being cleaned because if no one drops trash, the street doesn’t get dirty anyway.

            If he lived in Park Slope that would be another story, but for someone to own three cars in Park Slope they would have to be a masochist.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            that it keeps the street from being cleaned because there are trees.

          • Anonymous

            You always have to have some sort of answer don’t you? No one says he never moves his cars and don’t we have alternate side of the street parking to keep the streets clean? Isn’t that what that is for or is it just so we can fine violators and get revenue also. Please let’s not start a debate about ASP.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            I thought you were done.

          • Anonymous

            And those who do use all three cars also pay three times the gas tax, 3 registration fees, in other words three times as much as someone with one car.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            This is where we have to agree to disagree. I don’t think the taxes and fees associated with even 4 cars come close to the costs maintaining the roads.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            You’re kidding right? How the hell do you think everything they use gets delivered to within walking distance? Lets compare living in a Metropolis like New York City with living in the boonies of Upstate New York, or somewhere in Appalachia, perhaps the swamps of Florida? The deserts of Nevada? Whatever.

            Those people are FORCED to have cars to get access to the goods and supplies they require to live their lives. They have to travel great distances, expend time, fuel, etc. They can’t even get broadband because cable companies wont run lines out there. But here in the city where everything is connected by roads you don’t have to walk more then 2 blocks to find a bodega for that quart of milk or carton of eggs.

            If you honestly think that pedestrians don’t benefit from all the roads and cars you are a complete and utter…….you sir are mis-informed and need to re-examine our society and why we have what we have and how people are able to live the lifestyles they choose to live.

            The tax burden needs to be shifted accordingly and paid fairly across the entire population. Every single person benefits in a tangible and physical way from the roads and bridges. I’d ask you to imagine life without them, but I don’t have to. Pull up google maps, or google images and explore the world and places that don’t have the system of transportation that we do.

          • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

            We are not talking about trucks. We are talking about the fact that some people get to store their private property on public land. The person who has a lot of cars is getting a good deal when it come to free parking.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            You should read my other post where I discuss why I feel those with
            too many cars should have to pay a specific surcharge or fee/penalty
            for those cars…

            But families with just one car, or even two should not be
            automattocally penalized.

            There is a middle ground somewhere.

    • Anonymous

      Another reason for shortages of parking space is the constant ripping down of one family homes and replacing them with 6 family condos and adding only two additional parking spaces to the two that existed previously. So for every new condo there are at least two new cars looking for parking spaces. Build three new condos on one block and you have over six new cars looking for parking spaces.

    • Apt. Dweller

      A penalty for families in apartments with more than one car? That is completely ridiculous. Why should people be penalized because they live in an apartment and own a car? What about people who live with roommates? Someone has to give up a car or pay the price?? How about penalizing the people with driveways for parking on the street?

      • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

        Well, it wouldn’t be that simple. But, you really need to think about the big picture. Way to many people are far too concerned with personal convenience over how much the community they live in can handle.

        I’ll use my own block in Midwood as an example. The left side of the street is all private homes. The right has 2 apartment buildings sans parking and private homes in between. Many of the private homes have driveways, and some do not. Some have shared driveways with the house next door, and others have created curb-cuts and removed gardens taking away previously public spaces.

        We all have to live together and share the space we have, yet many of the families living in the private homes have as many as 3 or 4 cars. This wouldn’t be too bad if they did the right thing and kept them all in the driveway but convenience is more important to them so they take up street spaces too. Many people living in the buildings have 2 cars and in some cases 3 as well.

        As you can guess this creates a major clusterfuck. It’s made worse because so many adults are living together to save money because of the economy and nobody wants to give up their car.

        In situations like these there needs to be some “gentle” encouragement to limit the amount of cars registered to a single address. Especially for those of us (like me) who live in Apartments that don’t have parking. The presumption is that not everyone in the building will have a car, but that math goes out the window when some apartments have 3-4 cars registered to them.

        Those living in houses have more leeway of course, but when they start spilling over into public parking its taking advantage and going to far. So, while I don’t think we should go as far as to restrict anyone’s ability to own a car, those people who take up far more public space then others SHOULD contribute a bit more as well.

        I know for a fact one person in my building has 4 cars. 4. Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK.

        We all live together and we need to respect the space we use and share. Those that use MORE then their fair share have to contribute more.

    • Anonymous

      I think it would be unfair to target people who live in apartments. I think what you mean are people without driveways or garages. People in apartments do have garage space and many private homes do not have garage space or driveways. Maybe you have a point there but I am not sure. However if that is done, the number of illegal driveways would skyrocket and curb space be further reduced.

      Anyway, I don’t think many people realize the true costs of owning a car here and how high it is. I would think that most people who have more than one need it. My neighbor who has a driveway for multiple cars only has one although he and his wife both work. On days he can’t drive her or pick her up (3 or 4 days a week) she takes a cab. I’m sure he’s done the math and realizes it is cheaper to do that than buy a second car, or perhaps she just doesn’t drive and doesn’t want to learn how to. Anyway, she could even have door to door bus service. The difference is that the car trip takes 15 minutes and the bus takes an hour.

      The sad part is that the MTA has no idea how many people like her there are out there who would ride a bus if it were faster. All they ever count are their existing riders which is one reason why bus service is not improved to any meaningful degree.

      • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

        The two buildings on my block have no parking, my parents coop, 4
        buildings with 3 Parkinglots, it’s different everware.

        It can’t be denied that some people use more then thier fair share of
        the public commons. Apartment or House it doesn’t matter. The best
        solution would be to find a way to get those people and just those
        people to contribute more without being abusive or to punitive.
        However we can’t deny that a situation where 4 cars are registered to
        a single address in a residential area is remotley fair whatever their
        situation is.

        I can’t think of a perfect solution, I don’t think anyone can, but
        either way, charging everyone more or doing nothing at all is wrong
        and unfair and will only make things worse.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1643980010 Marie Friedman

    these “hipsters” really need to get a life
    if they love bicycles and walking so much, they could move to China

    • Anonymous

      Love the way they want to force their minority opinion on the majority. So muchfor democracy.

      • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

        Over half the housholds in Brooklyn do not have a car

        • Anonymous

          So what? Please do that analysis by neighborhood. Car ownership is much higher in southern Brooklyn than say in Bed Stuy.

  • nolastname

    Yesterday I parked on E 27 St. One of those driveways that were expanded without proper permits. It renders the spot useless except to the homeowner. BUT, knowing what I do, screw them.
    If illegal cutaways were given back to the public that would help Sheepshead Bay and Gravesend.

    • Anonymous

      I saw a sign yesterday that someone posted saying “Please do not block driveway.” But is it a driveway if there is no curb cut which there wasn’t? Of course not, but they expect you to honor it. If you don’t, they just key your car.

      • nolastname

        And I would not take that sitting down.
        I wrote a parking ticket back in 1987 and the bitch screamed out the
        window “if you put that on my car you will be sorry”.
        My response was “you live here and you are threatening me”. I had the
        woman’s plate what more do I need.
        Same goes for people that preserve a parking spot for their own use.
        PS, a key job to my car would go unnoticed.

  • Akalinin

    Fucking bureaucrats, its never enough for them. They are inefficient and lazy at the least. Instead of proper management of city funds and cutting out the waste, they want to increase taxes for the meager working class left in the city. As for hipsters, they are not even real new yorkers therefore not allowed to open their mouth at admin issue PERIOD. Take your bikes and shove them up your ass, just because you want to live like bums doesn’t mean everyone else does. I will go on a fucking quest to sabotage and terrorize every parking sign and meter if city officials even think about privatizing residential block parking. They put up street cleaning signs in order to extort people and thats not enough. Well we had enough. Try it and be prepared for war.

  • md

    what about people who live and work in places in Brooklyn that are not easily accessed by subway or bus? not everybody who lives in Brooklyn commutes to Manhattan, and with MTA bus service in Brooklyn already being slashed, why punish people who need to drive to make a living? What about somebody who needs to get to work to Coney Island hospital at 6am? why should they have to take 4 buses at 4am just to get to work? people need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that Brooklyn is a place where people live AND work.

    • http://www.chickenunderwear.com Chicken Underwear

      nobody wants to stop you from driving.